TARUN CHANDRAKAR Vs. KUMARI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/plaintiff is aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court, which has directed the petitioner to pay ad valorem Court fees on the prayer made by him for declaring the sale deed dated 26 -3 -2012 executed by the respondents No.1 to 5 in favour of the respondent No.6 as null & void and not benefiting the respondent No.6.

(2.) Admittedly, the petitioner is not the executant of the sale deed, therefore, he is not required to seek a relief of cancellation of sale deed and he can seek relief only to the extent that the sale deed is null & void and, as such, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh & Ors.AIR 2010 SC 2807, the petitioner/plaintiff is not required to pay ad valorem Court fees.

(3.) At this juncture, Shri Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1, 3 & 6, would submit that if that be so, the plaintiff is also required to value the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction in accordance with the relief of declaration and not on the basis of the value of the sale deed. He would submit that on proper application of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh (supra), a suit of such nature preferred by the plaintiff where he is not an executant of the sale deed has to be valued similarly for the purposes of pecuniary jurisdiction. The plaintiff cannot choose to avoid the payment of Court fees and at the same time institute a suit before higher Court, which has no jurisdiction in the matter. To buttress his contention, Shri Sahu would refer to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in S. Rm. Ar. S. Sp. Sathappa Chettiar v. S. Rm. Ar. Rm. Ramanathan Chettiar AIR 1958 SC 245